Ann Coulter on Vietnam

How intellectually bankrupt is the American right wing? In case you’ve missed it, Ann Coulter, that intellectual shining light for the right, apparently doesn’t even know that Canada didn’t support the USA during the Vietnam War. Seeing that she’s old enough to have lived through the period, I can only assume that she had/has no interest in international affairs.
and scroll down to Ann Coulter’s Canadian Debacle: Video

Brilliant! :bravo: :laughing: Just goes to show what a moron Ann Coulter is. That she’s a poster girl for the right just goes to show how out of touch with the facts the far right is - for them, it’s all about feelings and beliefs. Man, I really miss the CBC’s Fifth Estate - what an excellent programme.

Sunday’s Doonesbury got it just right:

She probably believes that the FBI want OBL for 9/11 too.

Uhhh guys…sorry to throw the cold water of facts on yer love fest…but…[quote]Canada’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Many Americans believe that Canada played not part in the Vietnam War; nothing could be further from the truth

Many Americans believe that Canada played no part in the Vietnam War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though the Canadian government tried its best to remain neutral, Canadians themselves became involved. It is believed that Canadian enlistment in the US Army during the Vietnam era far surpassed the 30,000 who fled as draft dodgers to Canada.

Canadians serving in the US military is nothing new. This occurred as far back as the Civil War. Forty Canadians have won America

Looks like a few posters should stick to their day jobs as well and forget about talking about international politics. But then I would only be suggesting that they take their own advice…

Everybody knows that there were Canadians who supported the Vietnam War, either through enlistment or commercial involvement. Canadians have fought in all kinds of places in the world as part of the military of other nations – such as in the French foreign Legion. Sometimes this has even been illegal. But this has nothing at all to do with the official policy of the Government of Canada, which is clearly what Ann Coulter was referring to.

Tainan Cowboy can be excused for not understanding the difference because (I assume) he’s such a young one that he wouldn’t have been around when Canadians, like the sergeant from my militia unit, enlisted in the Marine Corp. Ann Coulter is another story. The fact that she can’t tell the difference and clearly didn’t know what to say when Bob McKeown confronted her about this just goes to illustrate what an idiot she really is.

tinman -
I humbly accept your kind opine regarding my age. Although I must inform you that I am past the half-century mark and then some.
My interest in this post was raised; and I posted because of the fact that I personally served, in VN, with Canadians who had enlisted in the US military. I was in VN from Feb of '69 thru Apr of '71.
I attempted to make it clear both in my quoted articles and in my personal comments that the “official governmental policy” od Canada did not include sending troops - eith combatant or support troops. I apologize if I did not make this sufficiently clear.
The quoted articles also clearly illustrate that Canada did quietly pursue a role of great support to the Allied effort.

Ms. Coulter faux pas is clear. She is incorrect in asserting the Canadian Gov’t sent troops. OK…so what? She was wrong. Does this automatically render falsehood on any other staement she has/would make? Obviously no it does not.
I find this personally funny as I am not a big fan of Ms. Coulter. I happen to think that she is all too often a bit fast and loose with factuality.
I much prefer Laura Ingraham and her wit and observations.

Fair enough. And now, knowing that you are a veteran, I better understand why you posted the way that you did. I certainly don’t harbour any resentment toward Canadians who supported American involvement nor do I feel entirely comfortable about Americans who fled to Canada to avoid serving during the War. My problem is with Ann Coulter who is presented by Right as a spokesperson when she doesn’t even have the faintest idea what she represents. My brother (who lives in Canada) responded to Ms. Coulter’s error by stating that it just goes to show that she’s really just a nut bar and that the American Right is completely out of touch with reality. Regardless of whether or not the Right has a better spokesperson than Ms. Coulter, she is a speaker for the mainstream Right Wing of American politics. And she is uninformed. And she is a nut bar.

As I mentioned, I also find flaws in a few of her comments.
I do not think it accurate to label her a spokesperson for the “American Right.”
While her comments are in alignment with a great deal of what conservatives may similarly espouse, she indulges in an uncomfortable amount of grandstanding and showboating. This does relegate her to a smaller group of followers.
She does not have the factual/situational depth of Mona Charen or the honest wit Laura Ingraham. Another very gifted conservative writer would be Michelle Malkin.
I think of Ann Coulter more as the right wing female equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. She has the flash level and the tabloid trendiness but with better eloqution. She’s whats hot in the current political climate. But she tends to focus on reactionary articles rather than anything original.
Peggy Noonan and Linda Chevez also outclass Mc Coulter IMO.

Quite honestly, I’m not very informed about the American Right. I’ll take your word for it that she does not represent the best of what’s available and that it is correct to compare her with Geraldo. On the other hand, one of the things that Geraldo adequately illustrates is the willingness of many Americans to accept statements based merely on whether or not they correspond with their own interests and beliefs, rather than evaluating their own beliefs based on what is true. She may or may not be representative of what the intellectual Right could say, but her popularity demonstrates that she certainly is representative of that part of the popular Right that many Americans want to hear being said. This is what my brother was referring to when he said that she reflects the way in which the American Right is detached from reality.

The government of Canada didn’t ‘officially’ send troops to Vietnam, but a lot of Canadian troops did go on what is called ‘peacemaking’ missions.

Peacemaking is often confused with peacekeeping missions Canada usually does. The difference is when you are a peacemaker you are there to engage combat and not observe it.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? All of the Canadians who fought in Vietnam fought as members of American military units. End of story.

The term ‘peacekeeping mission’ is reserved by every knowledgeable person for soldiers who serve in warring areas on a UN mandate.

I do know what I’m talking about because I know soldiers who went to Vietnam from the Canadian army doing peacemaking missions. Not all Canadians who went to Vietnam served in American units.

‘Peacemaking’ missions are not just reserved for the U.N. Canada does it all the time. They send troops to places under the radar that goes unreported a lot. Just because it’s not in the news or history doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Perhaps you’re right, and I am being a hypocrite. My original concern was that your use of the term ‘peacekeeping’ created considerable confusion. Without offical international sanction, the presence of foreign military personnel can not be adequately distinguished from military aid. You’re correct that if you say that, given my definition, Canada provided military aid to the US during the Vietnam War. It seems that it’s me, this time, who is being overly aggressive in my argument. I have to apologize.

“Peacekeeping” is such an Orwellian term, anyway. Peacekeepers…but with guns? A military action is still a military action no matter how euphemistically you refer to it.

We refer to the Korean War as the Korean War, not the Korean U.N. Police Action or the Korean Peacekeeping Mission.

Lester Bowles “Mike” Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada from April 22, 1963, to April 20, 1968:

"While in office, Pearson resisted American pressure to enter the Vietnam war. Pearson spoke at Temple University in Philadelphia on April 2, 1965 while visiting the United States and voiced his support for a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam War. When he visited U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson hours later, Johnson strongly berated Pearson. According to Canadian folklore, Johnson grabbed Pearson by the lapels, shook him, and shouted “You pissed on my rug!” "

From “Our Glorious Coalition of the Willing: The Early Years”
By Elmer G. Fudd and The Mad Hatter

[color=blue]Authors Fudd and Hatter are currently working on a new book documenting how the U.S. was Iraq’s ally in its war with Iran in the 1980’s because the U.S. supplied satellite intelligence to Iraq and how the U.S. officially fought itself in the invasion of Afghanistan because American citizens joined the Taleban.[/color]

Yes…with that I quite agree.
Reminiscent of the axiom that sales people are the easiest to sell to. They want to believe what they are hearing because they are ‘tuned into’ that mind set theirselves.
Another thing - each person has their own notion of reality.
To their perception reality for them may be quite different from anothers. Thus conflicting statements from various eyewitnesses to a crime or incident.
Not to drag this out farther than neccessary. I think we are generally agreed on the salient points here.

What can I expect from the journalists at the CBC in Canada? They’ve been brainwashed by the liberal eastern establishment :smiling_imp: Maybe they should do a little fact checking – from within their own organization. Canada was heavily involved

Hay Chewy, in case you missed it, those links have been posted already. No one has ever denied that there were Canadians, even at the highest level who wanted a Canadian war in Vietnam, but I think that at the time, there would have been little argument that official policy and public sentiment opposed Canadian involvement in the war.

Really, this thread is not about the degree of official support for the War. Even the extremists (like me) would have to admit that there’s a case to be argued concerning the degree of Canadian involvement. On the other hand, this has little to do with Ms. Coulter’s idiocy. She was clearly unaware of the subtlies of this argument and did not know what to say when she was asked to clarify her statement. As far as I know, she has still not made any statement that would do so.

While not “officially” involved, there were more Canadian troops in Vietnam than any other country in the world, save the United States. And no, I don’t mean Canadian citizens who came across the border and joined US forces. Actual Canadian military troops. That is the 10,000 figure, by the way. 400 Canadian troops died in Vietnam. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your arguments.[/quote]

[color=blue]“However, it is little known South Korea, under military dictator Park Chung Hee, sent the second largest number of troops to the war after the U.S. A total of 320,000 Korean soldiers, paratroopers and, marines fought in Vietnam between 1964 and 1971. At the peak of the conflict in 1969, more than 50,000 South Korean combatants did battle in the war, outnumbering the North Vietnamese regular army.”[/color]